Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Wikipedia's Popularity Causing Its Decline?

Posted by samzenpus on from the too-many-cooks dept.

HughPickens.com writes: Researchers Halfaker, Geiger, Morgan, and Riedl have a new paper on the topic of open collaboration systems about how Wikipedia's reaction to its popularity is causing its decline. From the Abstract: "Open collaboration systems like Wikipedia need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors in order to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years, and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause. This paper presents data that show that several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia's primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention. Further, the community's formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes – especially changes proposed by newer editors."

12 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the hell?

    Wikipedia's asshole editors are causing its decline. It has been going on for a long time.

    1. Re:What? by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Asshole editors, inability to allow a mediocre edit be improved by others, rules that only apply to casual editors and not "the elite wikipedians" (read as crazy nut jobs with no lives on power trips), inability to make changes to articles where the thing has changed over time (like standards), on and on and on... and at the end of it all you cannot delete your account/disassociate yourself from Wikimedia because assholes.

    2. Re:What? by TigerNut · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly this. The requirement for "reliable references" and their method of vetting references (i.e., must be published in mass media or some equivalent) and the on-purpose rejection of "personal research" allow the perpetuation of inaccurate history even though current research may have turned up additional data that overturns the "common knowledge" of the day. A couple of years ago several of us actual Sunbeam Tiger owners had a discussion with the "editor" of the ST Wikipedia page, to attempt to present a viewpoint that adheres more closely to actual fact as opposed to some of the popular apochryphal tales that were put in print by some prolific automotive press writers. No go, because two of the editors had decided between them, without consultation of anyone that might have actual hands-on knowledge, that they had it "right" and therefore any counter viewpoint was without merit, regardless of how obvious the error was. Even attempts to go up the chain of authority had little success because of the established status of the editor in question.

      --

      Less is more.

    3. Re:What? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Asshole editors, inability to allow a mediocre edit be improved by others, rules that only apply to casual editors and not "the elite wikipedians" (read as crazy nut jobs with no lives on power trips), inability to make changes to articles where the thing has changed over time (like standards), on and on and on... and at the end of it all you cannot delete your account/disassociate yourself from Wikimedia because assholes.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

      The Wikimedia foundation spent $52.5 Million in fiscal year 2015 (an increase of $7 Million over the previous year). None of that money was spent on content creation and editing -- that's all done by unpaid volunteers.

      Until Wikipedia starts running itself like a real business, the decline will continue. That includes a full time staff of employees who are paid to oversee content creation, weed out the asshole editors that eventually drive away anyone interested in contributing, and who are held responsible if they don't do their job.

    4. Re:What? by careysub · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mod this guy up. The perpetual fundraising machine has become very troubling. They have cumulatively raised well more than $200 million dollars, most of that in just the last few years. We are constantly greeted by banners about how far they are away from their current fundraising 'goals' but those goals seem to be exploding every year, with no explanation about what that money is actually 'needed' for.

      Jimmy used to boast about how little it cost to keep Wikipedia on-line, just a few million at most, and with the money raised in just the last two years they could easily have set up an endowment that would keep those servers running forever, without requiring another dollar in fundraising, ever.

      It appears that the 'goals' are being set by simple formula: whatever we raised last year, plus 20%, and with an additional 20% "stretch goal". Seriously - that appears to be the only rationale I can glean from their reports.

      Oh, and they are finally starting an endowment now next year of $5 million, after having burned through $200+ million, and representing only 7% of their new $71.4 million base goal.

      With the cost of operating Wikipedia low and nearly fixed, and without paying any staff to actually produce their product (which is what this has become), why the 'need' for double digit annual revenue growth every single year?

      I am now telling everyone I know not to contribute to Wikipedia. They really, really, really do not need the money. Their days of paupery are long past. Jimmy is now in $profit$ mode.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  2. Gave up on it long ago... by Sebby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...when a simple (small, perfectly accurate, in accordance with the guidelines) edit I did to clarify a definition apparently warranted no less than 3 separate "warnings" about it; I could only conclude that they didn't, in fact, wanted contributions.

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
  3. All the easy articles are gone by Cigaes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is another point to consider: at the beginning, there was a lot to do, including easy stuff. You only had to know well a subject and be the first to write the article. Nowadays, almost everything is already written. To make a significant contribution, you would have to be an expert on an obscure topic.

    1. Re:All the easy articles are gone by TigerNut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's thin ice because of the requirement of verifiable sources. If you are an expert and have access to obscure sources (eg. club publications that are not widely available) or personal knowledge, that actual knowledge must not be allowed to taint the previously published tripe because the "tripe" is a "verifiable reference" and your actual knowledge is not.

      --

      Less is more.

  4. revert jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I tried to make some corrections to some pages a few years back...you guessed it - totally reverted almost instantly! No recourse or reason, totally turned me off trying to help...

  5. Translation.. by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wikipedia is overrun with territorial asshats who decry even sane edits. The tools used to promote change are in their hands, so newcomers are alienated. Big surprise. As others have mentioned, good edits get warned and deleted constantly. It is not a fun place to be.

    Now some may argue that this is part of an effort to keep out slanted/paid content, but that ship has sailed, and the interests that can afford to pay editors to push articles a certain way have the power and funding to push through the curmudgeons. The current attitude actually only serves those interests, as small, independent editors are more likely to get discouraged and leave.

    Mr. Wales doesn't care though, as long as he can do his yearly beg for money dance all is good in his world.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  6. You can't contribute to Wikipedia anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go ahead and try to make a contribution to a Wikipedia article.
    Watch as it's reverted within minutes by the veteran editor who is babysitting that article.
    Go ahead and try and cite sources when trying to add something.
    Watch as your sources are labeled as biased or not trustworthy.

    Wikipedia is a nepotism-fueled hellhole. Truth doesn't matter, only "verifiability". And "verifiability" is entirely subjective depending on the editor you're fighting against. You'll see sources like Buzzfeed considered higher-priority than official sources, if the editor feels like it. You cannot contribute to Wikipedia. You'll get crushed between the different editing factions, or "projects" as they're officially called.

  7. So-called "social justice" is to blame, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It isn't just the shitty editors, though. It's the shitty editors who are enabled and empowered by the so-called "social justice" movement.

    The "social justice" movement is all about exerting control over what others think, believe and express. This is done by any means necessary, including hypocrisy and censorship.

    There is a huge overlap between those who support the "social justice" movement and those who participate as editors at Wikipedia. Both draw in the same sort of academically-minded people who can't function within the real world. So they build their bureaucracies in academia and online at places like Wikipedia where they can actively engage in the suppression of others.

    These are the people who will manipulate Wikipedia articles to match the narrative that they want to dictate. These are the people who will suppress any sort of original thought. These are the sort of people who claim to be "tolerant", while practicing what is an extreme form of intolerance. These are the sorts of people who will mislabel their opponents as "racists" or "sexists" or "intolerant" or "bullies", even when that's clearly not the case.

    The awful editing at Wikipedia is just a symptom of the "social justice" disease that affects society today.